KRISHNA DEVI Vs. KARAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The queer order passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge on August 30, 1977 which is impugned in the present Revision Petition is not sustainable. It is not disputed that a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) was filed by Krishna Devi petitioner against Karam Chand, alleging that she had been married to the respondent and after six years she was turned out of the house by him. A written statement was filed by the respondent who took up some preliminary pleas, apart from contesting the case on merits. Along with the petition under Section 9 of the Act, a separate application under Section 24 of the Act was also filed in which petitioner claimed expenses of litigation and maintenance pendente lite. The application was also contested by the respondent. By means of the impugned order, dated 30th August, 1977, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge has disposed of the said application under Section 24 of the Act. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge instead of considering the matter on merits, merely highlighted the circumstances that in the application under Section 24 of the Act, the petitioner had not specifically alleged that she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent and on the score he non-suited the petitioner, though it was observed that this would not inhibit the petitioner from making a fresh petition, if so advised.

(2.) It appears that the trial Court has gone beyond the scope of its functions envisaged under Section 24 of the Act. This section merely provides for a summary relief, which may be granted to either party who has no independent income sufficient for his or her support, to claim of maintenance allowance during the pendency of the main litigation. It also prescribes that the necessary expenses of that litigation may be claimed by the petitioner from the opposite party. The dispute in regard to the validity or legality of the marriage is not to be gone into in such a petition and it is a matter which is to be considered in the main petition. For the purpose of the application under Section 24 of the Act, the Court is only called upon to make a summary consideration of the amount which the applicant is to be awarded by way of maintenance pendente lite and for expenses of litigation. These amounts, if any, are to be fixed in accordance with the financial resources of the parties as it may appear reasonable to the Court. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge was, therefore, in error in rejecting the application under Section 24 of the Act, merely on the ground that a specific allegation regarding the marriage between the parties had not been made in the petition. It may be mentioned here that such an allegation does find place in the main petition under Section 9 of the Act which is pending before the Court. The impugned order, dated August 30, 1977 is, therefore, set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court with the direction that the petition under Section 24 of the Act filed by the petitioner be disposed of on merits.

(3.) The parties shall appear before the trial Court on the date already fixed in the main case.